Trump to sign EO to investigate...

[Dill]

(05-13-2017, 10:45 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: So you honestly don't think if someone's showing bias in an argument that their bias shouldn't be brought to the forefront to discuss the integrity of their argument?

I'm sure you've taken more than one English class and I'm sure that in at least one of those Engish classes your teacher told you to avoid biased arguments when doing research and writing essays. Why do you think your teacher told you that? When you were being blatantly biased in the essays you wrote, why did your teacher point them out to you and tell you to re-evaluate what you said? 

Whether you realize it or not, people are pointing out bias in other people's arguments all the time. Not because they are playing "gotcha" but because they want to challenge the integrity of the arguments.

A classic example of "finger pointing" is when a creationist and an athiest argue about how the universe came to be.

I didn't really want to intervene in the bias discussion, but I cannot repress the urge to make three points here.

1. Telling someone to "avoid biased arguments" begs the question of what "bias" is and how it is pointed out or avoided. A good English teacher would not simply point to a student paper and say "that's biased."  Bias is revealed in elements of writing like choice of diction and unfamiliarity with and exclusion of alternative explanations. Choice of diction includes things like name calling and prejudicial language ("When that stupid Reagan sent our troops to Lebanon")  Standards for determining bias have to be independent of any specific religious or political viewpoint. E.g., you can't just say "That's biased cuz it's Mormon!"  

2. I have heard some good debates between creationists and atheists. And I must say that it is very difficult to defend the Creationist position without bias, since it tends to rely on faith. That in itself is a kind of bias.  One could say the atheists are "biased" in favor of scientific method and empirical evidence, but that might be a misuse of the term bias, since those are things characteristically used to exclude bias.  I have often heard Creationists use this tack, claiming science is really just another form of faith.

(Generally, I have noticed that, in the Anglo world, people with the weaker position in a debate eventually frame everything as finally "opinion," and everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's, right? What makes you think you are better than everyone else? For balance, I add that I have often found the new atheists unlearned and arrogant, and certainly subject to charges of bias and bad argument.)  

3. Finally, an argument could be "biased" and still be good, logical, sensible, informative. Worth reading. Myself, I am not particularly interested in whether an argument is biased. I am interested in whether it is logically consistent and the evidence is properly established.